Universal Basic Income, the 30-Hour Workweek, and the Economics of Poverty | Michael Slaby
Articles,  Blog

Universal Basic Income, the 30-Hour Workweek, and the Economics of Poverty | Michael Slaby

Look, I think change is scary. I think there is no way around that. I think what is familiar is easier for people,
and not everybody wants disruption and innovation and entrepreneurship; not everybody wants
to have seven jobs. That sounds terrible to a lot of people. I think the idea, the sort of assumption that
“everybody is an entrepreneur” is a bit of a mistake. I think many people are willing to be entrepreneurs
given no other option, but a lot of those people would rather just have a job. Like not everybody is a founder. That’s okay, this is not some failure. Founders are sort of unique animals in sort
of our social ecosystem. But what I think it requires of us as individuals
is: this pace of change is unlikely to be slowed down in a way that is productive. It could be slowed down in ways that are super
unproductive like being isolationists and protectionist and trying to make a global
economy smaller in ways that ultimately hurt more people than it will help. There are ways of slowing down innovation,
but I don’t think any of them are actually good for people. I think the reality is we have to get better
at teaching flexibility. We have to teach critical thinking and adaptability
to students as part of how we’re preparing people for the future. We also have to be willing—this is where
leadership matters a lot—willing to be more ambitious for ourselves. We tend to think about progress in generational
terms, “I want my kids to be better off than I am.” Well, why wait for your kids? Like if it’s easier and more effective to
make something somewhere else we can take on a bigger problem. And I believe that we can do that, that we
have the capacity to embrace something more ambitious for ourselves now in our lifetime
in a way that isn’t terrifying and in a way that isn’t—it’s about seeing these things
as opportunities and addressing the anxiety of trying new things and embracing new things,
and that requires leadership that is confidence-inspiring and that speaks to the discomfort that we’re
in, and that meets us at an emotional level of leadership that I think politicians are
pretty scared of a lot of the time. And I don’t think it’s just politicians, I
think it’s also business leaders, I think it’s community leaders, I think this is a
cultural shift in an attitude toward what “success” looks like and what “work”
looks like. And it may be the case that we’re moving into
this sort of post-industrial economy, we’re sort of in this complicated shift and industrial
jobs are moving and changing. Value is no longer linearly correlated with
work. So in a typical industrial system, if I work
more hours I create more value in a relatively linear equation, which is why an hourly wage
makes sense. But in a world where one more hour of work
might create 10X more value, but in the world we’re currently in all of that value goes
to an investor and none of it goes to me as the worker, hourly wages make no sense. And it might be the case that if we did a
better job sharing in that value creation and spreading the cost of disruption around
more effectively maybe we only need to work 30 hours a week, and maybe that is full employment. Maybe our definition of full employment needs
to be revisited just like a lot of our other assumptions. And maybe we don’t need seven jobs, maybe
we just need it to do a better job sharing the value we’re creating, and that leaves
more time to be parents. Like I don’t know that we need to take as
a given the 40-hour work week. Most other countries don’t and they haven’t
for a long time. Look, I think that this concept of shared
success and collective progress leads us toward a conversation that invites the question of
universal basic income. I think it’s a really interesting idea. I’m not an expert in it and I’m not convinced
that it’s the only answer. I think things like requiring companies to
do things like profit-sharing is part of the same conversation that ultimately what universal
basic income is about; is that we are collectively creating value and we should collectively
share in that value. I believe in that 100 percent. I think that we live in a community where
accepting the suffering of any of us makes all of us poorer and makes all of us less
well-off. Aand accepting that that is like the default
part of the gradient should be unacceptable to us. Is the answer a check from our government
that creates a minimum layer? Maybe. That may be exactly the kind of public good
that the government should create. The question is: who gets it, and how, and
when, and what are the cutoffs? Which is not to say it’s a bad idea, I just
think it’s a lot more complicated at the point of implementation than most people talk about,
of who qualifies? What if I make enough money? I mean this is a similar conversation to welfare,
who qualifies, at what point am I making enough money that I don’t qualify for that, and does
that create a valley or a cliff in my economic well-being and progress that creates problems
for people—that people get stuck in this valley, which is very true with especially
welfare where you must be working to get to benefit from welfare. The work-first mentality that started in the
’80s means that you can’t like, for instance, study while on welfare because you have to
work full time. And so you can study at night and yes you
can go to work and you can study at the same time, but it creates incentives that create
this weird valley in the middle of, sort of the way welfare systems, our welfare system
gets executed in the United States. I think that’s the kind of thing that we have
to be really, really conscious and careful of with universal basic income. I think the concept that we should accept
that anybody living in poverty shouldn’t be acceptable to us. We have enough wealth and value and opportunity
in this country for that not to be true and I think accepting it as true is just us wimping
out on a hard problem.


  • Hashem Ali

    In order to share profit, you must also share risk. So if an employee get's a share in the profit, they must also have a share in the losses. Otherwise it would not make financial sense. In fact this is why big CEO's make bad decisions that cost companies millions, because they know they will still receive their salaries and a severance packages. This is known as the "agency problem" and it applies to Executives and employees if we are to pursue the avenue of profit sharing. Employees must face the possibility of a loss in a bad year in order to share the profits and gains in a good year. But who is willing to risk their salary like that?

  • Brett Smith

    Most people have the opportunity to have a job, take those opportunities, and live meaningful lives. Then there are some who are able to be [successful] entrepreneurs and then make a significant impact on the world, and then there are those who are unwilling to work and will not join the workforce. This is a social construct, not an economic one. The question is: What happens if you have people that have the ability to create value, and choose not to do so?

  • wiirules13

    outdate economy? Please ,the Federal Reserve has been systematically screwing over the people now for decades!

  • Qinby 1

    Just to get things in to perspective…. US numbers. At the moment Around 38% of the population works ( at least 35h/week ). Out of these 18% are in some kind of public service (paid by tax money). 8% work in manufacturing (and here 10% is DoD work). The by far largest sector is the private service sector aprox. 70%. As one can see by this is that the manufacturing base is already very small. Also that unemployment numbers do not really matter, what matters is % of population working (no matter why) to get a "larger picture" of the situation. So automation in the US industrial sector will not change a lot in the near future since it has happened. It does not matter if it is a robot or an Asian doing "your job". The big thing will be transport sector, including both sea and air and lots of mid level "office work". Low level less savings and have happened to some extent. High level, try to cling on and making decisions can do that, people tend to think they are "special" and do not fire themselves. Then of course certain "specialist professions" heard a lot about programs in the medical field diagnosing all kinds of things much better than humans just by being better to analyze large amounts of data and "learning". Surgery probably a big upcoming automation, perfect for that. You seen a smart robot filleting fish?? :))   Would also guess that the financial sector will be hit hard by both AI and block chain. A lot of things are already done better by automation but are not applied yet. Just look at pilots, who needs them?? It is a matter of legal framework and social adjustment/acceptance.

  • Hippy Dippy

    This guy negates his own argument at the end when he says we have too much opportunity in this country. However, he does not address one solution which would solve the dilemma. Since some 40% of the expenditures in the US economy is government (which means it was stolen from the real economy), that means it negates an additional 40% in order to break even. This means that we are all living on only 20% of the actual economy. This doesn't even take into account that the stolen money is being primarily spent on destructive, rather than constructive, purposes. There are so many ways the UBI is wrong, but at least he admits he is ignorant of it. Which brings us to the next question: Why is he, of all those who ARE qualified to speak on it, not in this lecture? The answer: Because they know it's stupid.

  • Yuri Yanu

    Of course: we just need a real leader who is willing to rob those who work and redistribute to a (likely) growing population of non-workers, the consequence of whose actions regarding health and reproduction will be borne by the ever shrinking working class. It doesn't matter that socialism has never worked, this repackaged form of legal theft will surely bring prosperity, because… progress.

  • Jmriccitelli

    Basic income is nothing more than a new form of quantitative easing for the corporate masters. Why, where does the money from the basic income end up? It ends up IN THE END in the banks to speculate with or it ends up going to the shareholders of the money managers which are owned by large international corporations. The problem with the economy is government. And the reason government is the problem is because the corporate masters have captured it. They use all kind of techniques like regulations, inflation on consumer prices and asset prices, tax code manipulation, , manipulated trade, CIA and deep state, subsides, loop holes, give aways, bailouts, copy right laws, intellectual property laws, tax payer subsidized research and development,  to dominate and own the economy. So even if people did have basic income to spend, that's not solving the overall MAIN STREET economy problem. It's just a new form of corporate welfare and will continue the fact that the Cartels that control this economic monopoly can continue making profits with their government controlled and corporate owned mercantile system and liquidate the middle class longer and longer until we have a corporatist totalitarian centralized digital money economy that Orwell warned us about, that in the end will bring back of new form of corporate feudalism.

  • Matt Stone

    30 hour work week! All this technology and all we get out of it is shaving down the work week by a measly 10 hours? How about a 1-day work week?

  • Sid Murthy

    "Anybody living in poverty shouldn't be acceptable to us" – we can't reach this goal without changing from a competition-based society to one where we take care of everyone. Just by reading the comments on here it seems like there's a lack of trust amongst ourselves. Some feel it's unfair. Some feel it breeds laziness. We need to transcend past that way of thinking. This kind of separation in beliefs is what has always lead to social unrest in the past….people who believe in one way and others who believe the opposite. The voices for UBI (or some comparable alternative) will rise.

  • Jacob Forbes

    Ok there are way too many comments to read through them all in a reasonable time. Most of what I saw while reading is that everyone here, including the guy in the video, are seriously mentally challenged. The government has absolutely no business handing out money to anyone, setting minimum wage, creating arbitrary laws, taxing anything other than income at a regressive rate or flat rate at the worst. But for this topic of conversation, simply put… NO welfare or any other handouts of any kind. If they can't keep themselves alive then let them die. Blend them up and use them as fertilizer or something.

  • Phoenix Rising

    30 hours a week? Are you mental? At tops it should be 16 hours per week, per person. To get to that point however we would require investment in public services to provide QUALITY education (for all) Healthcare (for all) Social housing (for all) Basic HEALTHY food supply (for all) More people volunteering their free time with reduce the workload in society regardless. 30 hrs a week a is JOKE estimate, Sounds like something a capitalist would say.

  • Pendlera

    I think UBI is a great idea, except what if landlords just raise rents to the amount of the UBI? If everyone gets $2000 a month for UBI, what if landlords just raise rents to whatever they were before + $2000? How would UBI work without a very complex and restrictive system of price controls?

  • munderlarkst

    The main point of making it universal (no matter what a person's income is), is so stigma won't be attached to getting a basic income, which I think is a good idea.

  • Spurious Effect

    I have a question. Lets say the basic income is 12000 a year. For 100 million people, less than a third of the current population, that's 12 trillion dollars a year. Where would 12 trillion come from?

  • Jon Snow

    Robotization and automation coming and there will NOT be enough jobs for at least half the population of the developed countries (probably more like two third). A large part of those who will not be employed but receive income will live in slums, since no work but money give possibilities to drink and use drugs everyday.. Basic human nature can not be changed. The basic income is coming, is not a choice. 30 hrs week for who? Those who's work will not be replaced by robots for a while will work mostly full time, while those that can be replaced by machines, WILL BE replaced by machines. Agriculture , production and most service industry will be mostly human-less.

  • Will Pearce

    Surprising that this guy wouldn't research UBI before choosing to talk about it. The plan for UBI is that everyone gets it. In return you won't get any other sort of social assistance from welfare, alimony, government pension, unemployment insurance, etc. The idea is that government can do away with the bureaucratic mess all these social programs create. There would be far less administrative problems and it would set the tone for everyone to make something of their lives or to take the UBI only. OTHERWISE UBI WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN WELFARE!

  • Furry Manslippers

    Bottom line. Stop being greedy, teach the earth how to work together sharing all wealth made. Utilize handicapped persons to focus at what they show strengths at, and hope they are savants. Utilize the strengths of co-housings creating stronger relationships with the people around you. Take time to focus on your self everyday through meditation, deep think. Make housing free so there are no realtors or landlords making profit for nothing and make them work as well.

  • tom keane

    Planned obsolescence means people need to keep working because products are designed to break just after the warranty runs out.

  • DeepSpaceNinja

    The UBI would give people at the bottom more room to negotiate when looking for work, and not be exploited because their basic needs would be taken care of. UNIVERSAL means that everyone gets it regardless of wealth and status. The current welfare system disincentivizes working longer, getting higher pay or studying, which isn't right.

  • parker nichols

    This is fucking horrible, I want to work to keep myself alive because it is a fundamental part of human nature; to work for your sustenance, and to contribute to your community in a useful way. This gives everyones lives meaning! As soon as you take that away, you take away the will to work, and as a result you take away the thing that gives people's life meaning; A sense of purpose and belonging. Please let me keep my will to live.

  • Kooshi Koo

    He's blabbering on and on, without substance, from some vague capitalist perspective, implied, but not outspoken, or examined.

  • Laughingpug

    the entire reason you don't do the who gets it problem is because it causes a problem you end up spending more on making sure the people you don't want to have it then actually giving the people the money.

  • Bryce Baron

    If we move to universal income or other ideas by socialists in America we will just crash and be worse than before. The problem with socialism is not that it is implemented poorly. It is that it is executed successfully.

  • Sam Judge

    Is this guy asking more social programs and basicly want a mandated system for companies? honestly I really do understand how these people keep favouring on social programs, as it dosen't make people any wealthier and happier, this person may as well say " we must hold the the means of production on companies and the self-employed"

    I much perfear high wealthy people just do their business and not ask for more welfare or socialism. The better way to help people is not only easier to get a job but also pay less taxes..for everyone.

  • tyrell alexander

    Please watch this talk everyone. Just the first 45 minutes. Guy Standing : Time for a Basic Income?

  • Renzo Rugnone

    Universal basic income would give employees leverage over employers. Why should I work for you if I can cover my basic expenses. Employers don't want that, they want to make it seem like they're giving you a hand when in reality the guy at the top of the pyramid makes boat loads more than their employees. It's a power dilema, large corporations need to be humbled, but good luck with trump in office, he doesn't come off as the most noble of people.

  • green bird

    Emilio Cervantes: I agree completely. I read as much as I can find about poverty, lived in it for 20 years as well (I'm talking count out toilet paper squares poor). What I learned is that MOST OF US ARE TAUGHT THE ILLUSION OF SCARCITY. It's designed to scare people & keep them from helping each other. If you can convince each person that there's not enough of anything for everyone, & that every other person is competition, you have control over all of them.

  • CRMcGee2

    The capitalist system is based on greed and selfishness as the motivating factors.
    The last manufracturing shop I worked for took the bonus we had worked 3 months to earn and told us they had decided to invest it in new machinery for us. Within a month of the machine going on line, I got laid off. That one new machine replaced 3 full-time machine operators with one lower paid tender. So much for working hard and being rewarded.

  • Dave Klebt

    we need alot of people to do that cleanup and management of the trash on the streets… why don't these socialists talk about that? 30 hours a week picking up trash for a basic income…

  • Ben Brandt

    Seems to me the assumption that there are enough resources to sustain everyone is correct. And we've all got ideas about the right system ensure everyone gets basic necessary resources. The problem seems not be the system or the resources; the problem seems to be a character flaw. The problem is that I have plenty while my neighbor has little, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my own good for the good of my neighbor. I want to spend my life breaking that pattern by loving my neighbor as myself, even when those neighbors will squander the resources I share with them. I want to love the squanderers too. I'm fortunate to be part of a group that's committed to the same.

  • Ric Phillips

    The innovative part of a universal basic income (UBI) is the" universal" part. Universal basic income is in essence the inclusion of individual economic viability into the idea of human rights. That is what "Universal" basic income is "essentially about'! As he discusses-without reflection- the second your take away the universal part you are back to gross generalisations about human groups and arguing over values and worthiness. Still it is perhaps not surprising that in the U.S. A. the conversation about UBI is becoming a proxy discussion for finally establishing a workable public welfare system. Out here, in the rest of the developed world, ideas like social welfare, and the public good, have not been so demonised by contamination with over idealised ideas of individual liberty and anxiety fantasies about "government tyranny'. We shouldn't allow the cultural and historically contingent blinkers on American ''thought leaders" to set the tone for a discussion on how societies can deal with the end states of contemporary capitalism. As this little interview demonstrates the U.S. may just be too deep in the 19th century post-Calvinist hole it has dug itself. The needed innovations will come from societies not so ironically enthralled to a myth of liberty that they live in fear of collective action.

  • Joe Schmoe

    It's why we would need Heinleinian Stratification. So that residents have this basic level of existence. But citizens would have more options and the only ones with the right to vote.

  • Werner Boden

    Money represents an amount of work.
    If you want to eat, you buy food. That food is grown,harvested and sold in a store.
    This all requires work, for which people get paid, however, no one is receiving
    the value for their work. If everyone would get what they deserve, we'd all
    be working 20 hour per week, no proplems, no unemployment, better health.
    Unfortunately, this will never happen. There will allways be people that
    have the mayority of wealth, over the backs of hard working people.

  • AomiNe

    waste of time, sooner or later there will be a revolution to get rid of shit like Jeff Bezos, millions of people won't just sit there and starve to death when few billionaires exploit them and live in luxury at their cost, this already happened few times in history – Galician Slaughter for example, they just don't learn
    UBI and democratization of big corporations is the only way to prevent this

  • C

    we already have a ubi mechanism, and its called welfare. we know what people will do when all of their needs are met and you can just look around in the urban cities and rural townships. you are talking about a utopia and that requires a complete consciousness shift, which aint likely to work like you wish and dream.

  • kingogkingswoodz

    Europe can't compete with America on any level. Their population almost doubles the U.S.A and yet the GDP is the same. 90 of the top 100 companies on earth are American . 98% of Americans are above the world middle class standard. Over 80% of patents or inventions come from America. America has 5% of world population.

  • Dennis Walker

    Who pays for the UBI , how much does the UBI cost per dollar earned , guess you failed history . Socialism fails everytime everywhere always .

  • Dylan Campbell

    Who gets it? Google of course…so by your standars everyone should be entitled to a piece of google….or next time u wanna know something speak with a real person about the issue instead of jist googling it. They are listening to you…reading you comments…maybe even your mind by now.

  • rendy pulungan

    Why don't make the employee to invest in stocks?
    Profit sharing the corporation give dividens to share holder.

  • Viknesh Jayasekaran

    Corporation pay taxes, individuals don't. Everybody gets freehousing, and utilities like wifi, free education, free food in the form of coupons

  • vegacool1

    more time to be parents! I got a bunch of shit from my boss for being a parent. I was doing 40 hours of work in under 35, due to school, kids, etc,. He laid into me because I was the only person not there 80 hour plus/week. He told me maybe I should work somewhere else since my kid's school schedule is preventing me from being there full time.

  • wterwt werewrewr

    – is he trying to say that some form of socialism (shared success , shared value) can actually increase productivity and innovation , that is blasphemy , how dare you question this destructive accumulation of wealth

  • Joseph Lindquist

    The issue is what do those who contribute to the UBI of others receive?
    If someone works to earn or create more wealth, those who do not, should have some level of appreciation for those that did. The lack of this, is why there is so much envy based politics.

  • A.J. Hodges

    the way to avoid the valley he talked about if you replace all public assistance with a UBI is a step down. If UBI is 10k, for example, you could say that at 51k you get 9k in UBI, at 52k you get 8k, and so on so that at 60k you get no UBI. At this level most people don't trickle upward income wise, they make jumps but, they would have to make a pretty big jump to lose UBI all at once.

  • A.J. Hodges

    I just realized a big potential flaw in UBI. If you run it where every individual regardless of age gets it, this greatly incentuvises having children. Say the individual amount is $10k, a family of four gets 40k a year, a family of 6 gets 60k, and so on. I once saw a news clip of a single mom who had 12 children by 10 different men. She was living in a hotel unemployed but was somehow getting by with all of those children anyway. UBI would pay her $130,000 a year without working for as long as she exerted control over the kids' money.

  • John

    Capitalism is not compatible with UBI. The level of social change that needs to take place in order for our nation to adopt UBI, a shorter work week and other forms of shared thinking is nearly incomprehensible. Such change will occur only under the most dire of conditions. It simply will not
    occur under benign conditions.

  • NorfolkCatKickers

    As people have stated this moron doesn't understand basic income is for EVERYONE. Please get better guests he is not an expert as he doenst understand what the word universal means !!!

  • Furrowed Brow

    WE need a eugenics program – not a universal welfare program – which will only encourage dysgenics.

    You want to feed the hungry then you spend your money to do it.

    Don't reach into my pocket to take my money to do it.

    You Fing socialist.

  • Gurl EYee

    Why root for your own kids? I can't with these globalists. Let's root for Somalia because they really give a f##k about my kids.

  • Summondadrummin

    Money is currently loaned into existence by private banks. Basic income ought be coupled to monetary reform and be spent into existence by the treasury this would incur no debt therefore require no taxes to offset.If private banks can make up money and define it as a debt so can the government make up money and define it as a credit. In the near future people may just find that money ought not be such a big deal as its not real wealth and it is simply numbers used to measure the value of goods and services and fascilitate trade. The current economy is based on a fraud or a many centuries old trick. Perhaps we can grow up let ourselves in on the secret and create a truly modern economy.

  • Summondadrummin

    A Basic Knowledge of money and the monetary system ought to be considered a modern basic literacy. In other words when discussing Basic Income do the people discussing know what money is? How the current Central Banking system works (or doesn't)? Watch the vid 'Richard Werner prof brilliantly explains' for a look behind the scenes of banking. Also watch Money as Debt and look up the website of Positive Money.

  • Doctor Reno

    This idea was first floated by hard-line Marxist in the US shortly after the Russian Revolution. They said it should begin with the Unions and as we see it has metastasized out to the so-called general population who believe being LESS productive and lazy is better than any other "normal" work ethic. Cool. Just one example would be nice of anywhere in the world where this BS actually is good for it's population. You think farmers work 20 days because they like it…no, it's because if they don't people starve…simple.

  • [Grand Emperor] Nathanos Hausladen

    Spreading the wealth is what made people impoverished in the first place, so why go through it now.

  • atwaterpub

    Blame the victim mentality. 15% – 20% of the population is absolutely unemployable and they never will. Don't blame the victims. Don't blame the politicians. Blame the banks, corporations, and super-talented selfish rich guys that are essentially back stabbers..

  • Al Loomis

    more blather. another demonstration that we generally don't know, what we don't know. still, it's nice that he suspects things aren't going well in the usa. why should it? it was designed to go well for plantation slave masters. you can train a pig to run in a horse race, but it ain't ever gonna win.

  • A M

    How come illegal aliens come to the USA can find work/job? Duh.. So your for illegals coming here to take jobs that do not exist? WTF are you thinking?
    There will be less jobs? So why are you for Open Borders on Immigration? Isn't someone telling the illegals there are no more jobs? WTF?……

  • Danto Barbarian

    Contrary to popular belief most people prefer working in a already established business environment rather than making one from scratch.

  • Michael Brennan

    If you've heard of UBI before and know a very basic amount of the idea then this guy said absolutely nothing insightful. Waste of time.

  • Dustin Hagedorn

    Use some quantitative data to support the idea that this would be feasible. Talking about the way you "feel" on the topic just doesn't cut it. I'm open to ideas but until there is supporting evidence, it's just that, an idea.

  • Marco

    But….but….. ''muh'' horrible work for poverty or starve ''free market '' unlivable wage ''voluntarism''. Were ppl have the freedom to starve as a great alternative option..

  • Ian Macbeth

    I wonder why people are not even questioning the money system but see it as a solution to poverty. Fighting fire with fire if you like.

  • paco2ski

    FOUNDERS ARE THE 1% most couldn't do it.. Many of those who could dont want to be a slave ot shit.. Employee is just fine.. well fare and homeless. SHIT HAPPENS

  • Britbong

    I'm of the opinion that it's better to try and have it fail than to do nothing at all.

    It might fail. It might work. The fact is we just don't know. People cite the Finland study but that study was flawed by design. If you give 100 people extra money that creates an inbalance. If you give everyone the same amount the difference in wealth remains unchanged but the lower income earner is benefited dramatically.

    It can't be any worse than our current welfare system.

  • Springtime4Harold InParadise

    Globalism does not help anyone in what have been higher income nations such as the United States. We have allowed corporations and Wall Street interests to take over and dilute the labor pool through globalism. It allows corporate boards to decrease hours and wages while they either outsource or mechanize local labor. You can't have globalism and have a high income nation with a majority of middle income income earners, and not everybody has the ability to take the risk to be an entrepreneur.

  • Tim S

    It is ridiculous to separate consumption from production the way the US has done. Consumption does not matter if you dont have income. It is more ridiculous for the US to decide to not enforce Sherman Anti-Trust Act based on its effect on consumption and not its effect on labor.

  • mekman4

    I figure that Trump’s Wall was a contracting scam, who would get those billions he claimed to need? It could go into the pockets of his benefactors, but for a while since this subject of basic income has come up, it could go to those names he puts on his list. Considering the circumstances, it’s kinda skeavy but it gives me an idea that this is a notion that is a possibility. The US spends billions the world over via routine, China doesn’t need that money. I could use it! It’s kinda like living in a dungeon not being told that you don’t have to live in a dungeon anymore.

  • Barrie Wright

    That's another explanation for the use of Gui to make sure that the people also share in the wealth of their economy , instead of the wealth generated by the people all going to the few, how are not paying back in to the community " TAX", or they are hiding their wealth in some off shore account to avoid TAX ! , which makes society weaker ! , not all of the 1% a void their taxes I must iterate that point they do pay its the ones that don't ! . With the knew technology on the horizon the present economic model they have used since the beginning of the industrial revolution will have to be modified or heavily upgraded to meet the future that's coming.

  • david abe

    It's amazing to watch a socialist talk themselves into circles that only make sense to people that also want something for nothing. You all have great reasons why you should get what is not yours… It's just so sad that this is how you choose to spend your time rather tan making yourself better. you spend your time making your self worse.

    A UBI will never work as it will cause mass inflation and a drop in over all productivity. Other nations might work less but they have less. most countries only have what they have in tech and healthcare advancements because the US made them before we started becoming socialist and slowed waaaaay down.

    The economy works one way and one way only… You guys want to force it to work a different way and the out come will be mass poverty as it has proven to do every single time. I know I know, things are different and you are spacial… it will work this time, right? Wrong.

    Automation and AI are not going to displace jobs that will never never be replaced by other emerging industries to support that automation and AI. history is crystal clear in that automation and AI create more jobs than it takes over, by fuck loads. The problem is you want that 1k a month and you just don't care what you have top say or believe in to get it.

    Here is what a smart person looks like… so smart that he predicted not only Yang, but many of you.

    “When the people find that they can vote
    themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

    ― Benjamin Franklin

  • Kevin Lopez

    If it's "Universal " doesn't that mean that lobbyist would find a way to exploit that as well ??? . Maybe furthering the inequality in this country ????..

  • David Destin

    demanding that citizens work 2-3 jobs just to survive is pretty much the definition of CLASS WAR. and if you aren't a good slave, you are welcome to live and die in the gutter. this country disgusts me, I am proud to be destitute and homeless, my contribution to this cruel and inhumane society is ZERO. I was able to put a roof over my head for over 20 yrs, I guess it was MY fault for thinking that so long as I worked my ass off I deserved the basic means of survival.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *